article description

Show More Hide

An argument recently proposed by Chirimuuta (2014) seems to motivate the rejection of the claims that every neurocognitive phenomenon can have a mechanistic explanation and that every neurocognitive explanation is mechanistic. In this paper, I focus on efficient coding models involving the so-called "canonical neural computations" and argue that although they imply some form of pluralism, they are compatible with two mechanistic generalizations: all neurocognitive explanations are (at least in part) mechanistic; and all neurocognitive phenomena that have an explanation have (at least) a purely mechanistic explanation.

This article has 2
twitter interactions.
It has received 1
tweet
and 1 retweet.